Nonsense-based CTG use
A German study criticised the use of antenatal cardiotocographs (CTGs) for low-risk women, highlighting a disconnect between clinical practice and evidence. This is nonsense-based care and it hides a HUGE human rights abuse.
Does wireless CTG monitoring help?
A recent study in Turkey compared wireless and wired CTG monitoring in women during labor. It found no significant difference in comfort but showed reduced pain and higher birth satisfaction with wireless monitoring. Labour duration was shorter with wireless use. It’s not final proof – but it is a great first start in understanding whether wireless CTGs live up to the hype!
Is the CTG recording the “real” heart rate pattern?
The idea that only CTGs give us the “real” heart rate pops up from time to time. A recent study found high rates of data dropout in CTG readings, with the software built into the CTG machine making up data to fill the gaps. Babies who had lots of made up data were more likely to be born in poor condition. CTGs don’t show the “real” heart rate all of time!
Is the use of CTG monitoring by women at low risk a problem or not?
A Danish study reviewed fetal heart rate monitoring practices among low-risk women, revealing that while 50% received intermittent auscultation, many still underwent continuous CTG monitoring. The researchers overlooked that women, not guidelines, choose monitoring methods. This raises ethical concerns about autonomy in fetal monitoring decisions.
Isn’t it time we found out if fetal blood sampling does something useful?
Fetal blood sampling has dropped out of practice, or reduced in use, in many parts of the world. It other places it remains a staple part of obstetric practice. This is a living example that far more than evidence alone is what drives practice. The evidence-base for fetal blood sampling was never very strong – and new research remains important to understand whether fetal blood sampling is a useful part […]
Behind the scenes at Birth Small Talk
Life is full in very lovely ways – but I can’t fit it all in anymore. Changes are coming, including for the Birth Small Talk Blog. Comment BLOG and I’ll send you the link so you know what is going on, what is changing and what isn’t.
Which heart rate features tell us the baby is in trouble?
One of the fundamental requirements for any form of fetal heart rate monitoring is that the patterns that are detected MEAN something useful. In this week’s blog post I share yet another piece of research that should undermine blind faith in fetal monitoring practices.
Unintended consequences of common-sense choices: Maternal heart rate monitoring on the CTG
In recent years, there’s been increased awareness about the possibility of confusion between maternal and fetal heart rates during CTG monitoring. This new research indicates that adding maternal heart rate data to the CTG might be having a negative impact on CTG interpretation. Read the details on the blog – including my suggestions for how to solve the problem.
Is “loss of contact” a good thing or a bad thing?
A study by Roth et al. (2026) examined signal loss in external cardiotocography (CTG) during labor, revealing significant gaps in heart rate recordings. Findings indicated no clear correlation between these gaps and adverse outcomes for babies, challenging common beliefs about continuous monitoring.
Why is intermittent auscultation so hard to do in the UK?
Intermittent auscultation is a logical, evidence-based option for many women. But many women struggle to access it. New research provides insights about why that is the case in the UK – and offers some fairly easy to change possibilities to remove barriers.
